139
East German guards carry away a refugee wounded by machine-gun fire after trying to escape East Berlin, 1971
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
139 points (97.3% liked)
HistoryPorn
7322 readers
1 users here now
COMM MOVED TO [email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, every system has to let people die if they aren't valuable enough. Even the most generous, open-hearted system must engage, at the end of the day, in triage. Resources are inevitably limited - throwing infinite resources after low-value cases is simply not viable, and, I would argue, also not moral. What system will put equal resources towards a 110 year-old with dozens of chronic problems and a 20 year-old with potential for full recovery? Will a commune exhaust their resources on a heavily-wounded stranger when there are limited critical resources needed for members of the commune? All systems choose to spend their resources in such a way that lets some die, and others live. Systems which put emphasis on wealth may appear more brutal in this sense, but in truth, they're just more naked as to their processes and reasoning.
Hm, maybe. But there is a difference between them dying being beneficial to the system or not.
I mean, unless the plan is to leave them half in the grave and ready for burial, them dying is going to be beneficial to the system which will no longer need to sustain them.
The criticism you're looking for, I think, has more to do with profit motive and the delegation of decision-making to those who, well, profit by it - ie "We're going to let this person die because another .01% profit this quarter will let me get a new yacht" kind of thinking